On this page, we will discuss Preamblism’s take on democracy, security (both domestic and international, including gun control), the economy, taxes, government spending, health care, & the environment. If you haven’t already, we suggest reading these pages first— “Home: The Preamblist Movement Inc.” and “Preamblist Movement Foundational Content:”
Democracy, Elections, and Democratic Reforms:
“Democracy is worth dying for because it’s the most deeply honorably form of government ever devised by man.”- Reagan D-Day anniversary speech (source).
Preamblists believe in promoting and defending democracy here in the United States. The Preamble to the Declaration states that governments “deriv(e) their just powers from consent of governed,” and democracy is the best and only form of government that can truly achieve this. The Preamble to the Constitution starts with “We the People.” As Chemerinsky states, “This phrase makes clear that the United States is to be a democracy.” (Chemerinsky, Erwin, We the People, A Progressive Reading of the Constitution for the Twenty-First Century, Picador 2018).
Furthermore, democracy is usually so much better than the alternatives. As Churchill said “Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’ (source).
Democracy has its flaws but, as Eleanor Roosevelt said: “Sometimes the processes of democracy are slow, and I have known some of our leaders to say that a benevolent dictatorship would accomplish the ends desired in a much shorter time than it takes to go through the democratic processes of discussion and the slow formation of public opinion. But there is no way of insuring that a dictatorship will remain benevolent or that power once in the hands of a few will be returned to the people without struggle or revolution. This we have learned by experience and we accept the slow processes of democracy because we know that short-cuts compromise principles on which no compromise is possible.”- (source).
Elections:
One of the keys to an effective democracy is elections whose outcome reflects the will of the people. Therefore, we believe in making voting easier for all and also more secure. First, about making voting easier for all: We believe that democracy is stronger and better when more citizens vote. In other words we believe in maximum enfranchisement. We promote democracy and enfranchisement viewing them as inextricably linked. We believe in making voting easier for all by expanding the number of polling places, increasing mail-in and electronic voting, making registering to vote easy, and eliminating any other burdens to voting. These statements may seem so basic but there are several citizens, some of them powerful, purposefully trying to disenfranchise other citizens to give an advantage to the political candidates and party they support.
Likewise, we stand against gerrymandering, the overt or subtle suppression of voters, collusion with foreign adversaries to influence elections, and the casting of doubt on elections that evidence shows are fair.
We believe that we can protect against fraud without suppressing votes- enfranchisement and fraud prevention are not always opposing forces but instead can work together to ensure fair elections. We stand for voting systems that strongly defend against fraud perpetrated by either domestic or foreign sources but not by disenfranchising voters- we believe that election systems can and should be established that both enfranchise and protect against fraud.
Continuous Reforms to Make the United States More Democratic:
We believe in continuous reform of our government to promote true representative democracy and eliminate barriers to democracy.
Reform Presidential Election Voting:
We are concerned with the current design for electing the President of the United States because it creates confusion that decays faith in democracy. We believe the Electoral College system must be reformed because, as the 2020 election proved, the method used to select and certify the Electoral College allows too much opportunity for the incumbent president and loyalists in Congress to overthrow the results of the election in favor of their party. (source)
Moreover, we are concerned that a candidate can win the popular vote by a significant margin and still lose the presidency. It is very undemocratic to appoint the candidate that most people voted against. To Preamblists, this is a major flaw of American democracy, and goes completely against the Preamblist Values of “consent of the governed” and “we the people.” This must be changed.
Additionally, we are concerned that, due to the electoral college, a vote for president in some states counts much less than a vote in another. (source).
One of the arguments for the current Electoral College is that it ensures less populous states are not ignored in election campaigns. But it actually causes candidates to focus on a few battleground states especially if they are populous, while ignoring others (source). Additionally, less populous states already have a much more effective advantage in the Constitution in the assignment of two senators to every state regardless of population.
Finally, when a candidate wins the presidential vote count in a state by a small margin, it is not the most democratic practice to then assign all the electoral college votes of the state to that one candidate thereby completely ignoring all those who voted for the other candidate. If we must have an electoral college instead of just counting the nation’s votes, we support assigning the electoral college points in a state in proportion to the vote. For example, if a state has 10 electoral college votes, and 60% of state citizens vote for Candidate A, then the state should assign 6 electoral college votes to Candidate A and the other 4 to Candidate B.
Reform Representation in DC and the US Territories:
Due to our commitment to democracy, we are concerned that American citizens in Washington DC and the US Territories of Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands do not have voting representation in Congress. Additionally we are concerned the US Territories cannot vote for US President. These are American citizens with very limited representation in government unless they vote in a different state which is not available to all nor results in the same benefits for where they live. No wonder they are underdeveloped compared to US states. (source)
Reform Campaign Finance:
Preamblists generally believe in campaign finance reform. We thinks it’s safe to say that many government officials and candidates are influenced (consciously and subconsciously) by big donors to take actions that sometimes run counter to the Preamblist Values. To offset the influence of money, we believe, representatives should not be allowed to accept more than one small donation from any single individual, corporation, union, or organization in general. The maximum amount of the donation should be one that most citizens could reasonably afford. Without this rule, many candidates become beholden to the few rich at the expense of the many which destroys the candidate’s ability to achieve the preambles. Unfortunately money has tainted our politics on both sides of the aisle. Those who can give the most money have much more access to government. Take one example among many when Mike Hodges, a million dollar plus donor to President Trump stated in reference to a regulation affecting his business “I’ve gone to [Republican National Committee chair] Ronna McDaniel and said, ‘Ronna, I need help on something. She’s been able to call over to the White House and say, ‘Hey, we have one of our large givers. They need an audience.” And “I have gone to the White House and…the White House has been helpful on this particular rule that we’re working on right now. (source) (additional source on last sentence)” After substantially more than “$688,000 on donations to Trump and House candidates, as well as $350,000 in lobbying, (source)” the Director of the Consumer Federal Protections Bureau (CFPB) stated that she would consider reversing the major regulation in question. “If, she flips, there’s strong, albeit circumstantial, evidence that Mike Hodges’s money played the deciding role. (source).” And guess what, she flipped when, on July 7, 2020, “she released a final rule that eliminates basic protections from payday and car-title loans that trap consumers in debt. Today’s action guts the 2017 CFPB Payday Rule by eliminating that rule’s main consumer protection: the commonsense requirement that lenders verify borrowers have the ability to repay a loan before the lender issues the loan.(source)” In other words, a rich payday loan business owner, was able to at least gain access on the issue of this regulation, in a way that no other consumer was able. This was an example from the right, and money is also tainting politics on the left: “A left-leaning, secret-money group doled out a whopping $410 million in 2020, aiding Democratic efforts to unseat then-President Donald Trump and win back control of the Senate. The group, the Sixteen Thirty Fund, financed attack ads against Trump and vulnerable Republican senators and funded massive get-out-the-vote and issue advocacy campaigns amid the coronavirus pandemic, as detailed in a new tax filing obtained by POLITICO. It exploded in size during the Trump administration, going from a few tens of millions of dollars per year to raising and spending hundreds of millions.” (source). And of course, these are two examples of vast amounts of money in politics funded in large part by the rich because those of the middle and lower classes can’t afford to pay big dollars for this kind of political influence.
Topic: The Preamblist Values of “Safety,” “domestic Tranquility,” “common defense”, and “Future security”
We embrace the Preamblist values of “Safety,” “domestic Tranquility (peace),” “common defense,” and “future security.” So often we think of the preambles as being about high-flying values such as liberty and equality. But the preambles are also about the nuts and bolts basics of what we need from a government such as security and safety. This theme goes back centuries. Thomas Hobbes thought security was the main reason for government: “LEVIATHAN called a COMMONWEALTH, or STATE (in Latin, CIVITAS), which is but an artificial man, though of greater stature and strength than the natural, for whose protection and defence it was intended.” (source) Hobbes believed that the people gave up their rights to an all-powerful sovereign whose job was to enforce order even if it meant tyranny which was better than a state of nature which was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” (source). Likewise Machiavelli believes a major reason of government is order and stability even if it means cruelty: “A prince, therefore, must not mind incurring the charge of cruelty for the purpose of keeping his subjects united and confident; for, with a very few examples, he will be more merciful than those who, from excess of tenderness, allow disorders to arise, from whence spring murders and rapine; for these as a rule injure the whole community, while the executions carried out by the prince injure only one individual.” (source) Of course, I believe that Machiavelli and Hobbes go too far in their remedy, but they do have an important point- one of the main reasons for government is to provide security and safety to it’s citizens. And there is a good intent behind this: security and safety are morally right because they are about protecting people. Additionally, they are a cornerstone of any effective society. Without them, most members of these societies can’t focus on anything else productive. I know that if my family’s safety is at great risk, I won’t do anything else productive until they are safer. Additionally, members of unsafe societies have less reason to try to build a better future because why bother?- bothering could get you killed, or what you build today will likely get destroyed tomorrow.
So far, this all seems pretty obvious right? Of course one the main reasons for government is to protect its people. Well one of the roles of Preamblism is to state the obvious because our government does not always follow the obvious path and sometimes goes against its own obvious Preamblist values. For example, unfortunately, the Supreme Court has sometimes ruled against the idea that one of government’s roles is to protect people:
For example, in Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the police did not fail in this instance which we recount in the words of Jessica Lenahan herself: “In 1999, my estranged husband, Simon Gonzales, kidnapped (her children) Rebecca, Katheryn, and Leslie in violation of a domestic violence restraining order I had obtained against him. I repeatedly contacted and pled with the Castle Rock Police in Colorado for assistance, but they refused to act. Instead, over a 10-hour period, the police responded to a fire-lane violation, looked for a lost dog and took a two-hour dinner break. Late that night, Simon arrived at the police station and opened fire. He was killed and the bodies of my three girls were found in the back of his truck. No investigation ever took place to determine the cause, time and place of my children’s death. I sued the town of Castle Rock for failing to enforce the restraining order I held against my husband. My case went all the way to the Supreme Court, but they ruled that the enforcement of a restraining order wasn’t mandatory under Colorado law. I felt utterly abandoned…(source).” This ruling is in complete contradiction of the goals and rights stated in the Preambles of “Safety,” “future security,” “life,” “pursuit of happiness,” “justice,” “domestic Tranquility,” “common defense,” and “general welfare.”
And, unfortunately it’s not the only ruling like this. For example, there is the case of DeShaney v. Winnebago County. This ruling was about a four-year old boy, Joshua DeShaney, who was beaten so badly by his father “over a long period of time” that he “became comatose and profoundly retarded. (source).” The county government had ample evidence to know that the abuse was occurring but “did not act to remove Joshua from his father’s custody.” Yet, the supreme court ruled in 1989 by 6-3 that the county government had not failed because they weren’t obligated to protect the child: “The Clause (Due Process Clause)…cannot fairly be read to impose an affirmative obligation on the State to ensure that those interests do not come to harm through other means. (source).” In other words, the Supreme Court ruled that the government is not obligated to ensure the rights and goals of the Preambles for even the most vulnerable. This ruling is problematic because the Supreme Court, part of our government, is contradicting one of the very reasons that our government was created- to provide safety and security- values clearly stated in the Preambles. As Supreme Court Justice Blackmun dissented at the time: “Poor Joshua! Victim of repeated attacks by an irresponsible, bullying, cowardly, and intemperate father, and abandoned by respondents who placed him in a dangerous predicament and who knew or learned what was going on, and yet did essentially nothing except, as the Court revealingly observes, ante, at 193, "dutifully recorded these incidents in [their] files." It is a sad commentary upon American life, and constitutional principles – so full of late of patriotic fervor and proud proclamations about "liberty and justice for all" – that this child, Joshua DeShaney, now is assigned to live out the remainder of his life profoundly retarded. Joshua and his mother, as petitioners here, deserve – but now are denied by this Court – the opportunity to have the facts of their case considered in the light of the constitutional protection that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is meant to provide.(source).”
So we have discussed our strong belief that the Preambles call for our government to protect us, despite what the Supreme Court said in the opinions above. Now we cover the question of: How should our government protect us? We believe that getting closer to achieving the values of “Safety,” “domestic Tranquility (peace),” “common defense,” and “future security” requires a multi-faceted approach and looking at lessons from history, especially recent history. We believe in three overarching strategies: 1. limiting the causes of violence, 2. deterring and preventing violence, and 3. defense from violence.
1.Limiting the causes of violence speaks to heading off violence before it is even close to occurring. This strategy is an important part of Preamblism not only because it lessens violence, but also because it is interrelated with the other Preamblist Values- the more we achieve these other values, the more we limit the causes of violence, and the more we limit the causes of violence the more we achieve these other values- and the cycle repeats and repeats; here we see a positive feedback loop (like we referred to on the “Preamblist Movement Foundational Content” page). Here are three common causes for violence and ways to limit them that are interrelated to other Preamblist values:
a. One of the main reasons people/communities/nations commit violence against others is because the perpetrators perceive they can gain something more easily and quickly through violence than through peaceful means. For a simple example, someone may commit a violent robbery because they perceive its an easier and quicker way to gain money than to earn the equivalent amount through a job. Therefore, one way to limit the causes of violence is to make it easier for all to gain more through peaceful means rather than through violence. This includes government and society giving all its residents a reasonable opportunity to succeed at all points in their life which aligns with the preamblist values of the “pursuit of happiness” and “general welfare.”
b. Another common reason for violence is political. Therefore we can limit violence by continuing to make our government more democratic. True democracy, in which all votes count equally, presents all citizens with a peaceful way to vent anger and change their government when the next election comes along. Democracy is of course most related to the Preamblist Values of “consent of the governed” and “We the people.”
c. Another reason for violence is intense anger or desire for revenge due to an injustice. By respecting the human rights of all its citizens a government can limit intense anger directed against it or its other citizens. Respecting human rights is synonymous with the “unalienable rights” in the Preamble to the Declaration and the Preamblist values of life and liberty. Furthermore, by respecting human rights in our foreign policy, we can improve our security because we avoid creating enemies and by promoting human rights we create friends. Therefore, we believe that there is a win-win path to achieving both universal human rights and security- ensuring universal human rights actually increases our domestic and international security and this security in turn protects our rights.
2. Another strategy for a government protecting citizens from violence is deterrence. The idea is that people are less likely to commit violent crime if there is a high chance they will be caught and punished. As Steven Levitt says when interviewed on the Podcast Big Brains:
“Crime imposes an enormous cost on society, but efforts to control crime like incarceration and whatnot, they also come with enormous costs. The Holy Grail of crime is, how do you just convince people not to do the crime in the first place? We call it deterrence. It turns out both empirically, and it makes common sense, that almost nobody would do a crime that they know they’ll be caught for. For instance, people do not rob the Dunkin’ Donuts when the police are in the Dunkin’ Donuts. It’s just empirically, you’d see that probably doesn’t happen. (source)”
3. Another strategy is defending citizens from violence which refers to limiting harm from violence that is imminent or has already started. For this strategy, and the prior one, deterrence, we need strong, well-trained security forces and a justice system including but not limited to the police, courts, prisons, and border patrol. Internationally this includes all the armed forces, CIA, and international law enforcement agencies. We believe almost all members of these agencies are heroes who often put their bodies and minds on the line and we should reward them accordingly with high salaries, great equipment and training. Paying them better is not only morally right, it is to our advantage because it should also help attract and retain talent in our agencies and justice system.
We do not believe in “defunding” our security forces- we believe in continuously improving and reforming them. Continuous improvement and reform is important because the consequences of their actions are serious- sometimes as serious as death for them or someone else. This is because defense often involves some sort of counter-violence. For example, arresting a suspect is a type of counter-violence especially when a lot of force must be applied to make the arrest. Additionally, imprisoning a convict is also a form of counter-violence. A key point is that counter-violence, especially when applied unwisely, has the risk of causing more harm than the threat itself in the immediate or long-term future. The saying “violence begets violence” is often true including when is comes to poorly applied counter-violence. As Jesus stated, “Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword”- this saying can apply to well-intentioned but poorly applied counter-violence. So although we accept that counter-violence is sometimes, perhaps frequently, a necessity to defend us, we believe it should be used wisely; our definition of wisely is: when necessary, in the amount necessary, proportional to the threat, and surgically against the threat itself with a goal of absolute minimum “collateral damage” meaning minimum harm to the innocent. Sometimes our domestic and international security and justice apparatus has thought that a certain type or amount of counter-violence would solve a problem, but it often ended up creating other problems because it was applied unwisely. This is important because when it uses counter-violence unwisely, the government ends up implementing the opposite of the Preamblist Values which diminishes trust in the government. Additionally, we should be cautious with counter-violence, because as the philosopher Nietzsche states, “Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster.” (source) and “Let us rather raise ourselves that much higher. Let us color our own example ever more brilliantly. Let our brilliance make them look dark. No, let us not become darker ourselves on their account.” (source). Here are some examples domestically of where we need to be more careful in our application of counter-violence:
Police have sometimes used too much force in the name of fighting crime, especially against minorities. This has resulted in a loss of trust which is highly problematic because the agencies and justice systems that best achieve security are trusted by ALL the communities they are sworn to protect. The word ALL is very important. Currently our police forces are not trusted by some communities which prevents them from being able to operate effectively in these communities. Our police forces must repair this trust. A first step is to reform their overuse of counter-violence in certain situations and provide incentives to avoid over-use of force.
Additionally, our justice system has overused counter-violence as it imprisons too many people for too long especially for non-violent crimes. The US government forces so many people into prison that it has the highest prison population in the world…about six times Canada’s rate, between six to nine times Western European countries” and we are not safer because of it as the US has a higher violent crime rate than any of these countries. In fact, prisons often become breeding grounds for violent crime. Prisons are a necessary counter-violent tactic in defending us. But over-imprisonment is an unwise use of counter-violence. We must reform our prison system and end the overuse of the counter-violence of imprisonment. By the way, our prison system is an extremely expensive use of tax-payer dollars.
Another example of unwise counter-violence is the US has fought the war on drugs using more militarized police forces as a major tactic since 1971 but yet drugs are still pervasive. This overuse of counter-violence has sometimes been worse than the effect of the drugs. The US must lessen this tactic of the war on drugs so that the solution is not worse than the problem itself.
A final example of unwise counter-violence domestically is high-speed police chases. These chases have sometimes ended in injuries to or even death for innocent bystanders.
International Counter-Violence:
When it comes to counter-violence on an international level, we also benefit from caution and wisdom. We believe that Americans are generally safer if we use force surgically in a proportional way that avoids harm to the innocent. This gains allies in achieving peace and helps to avoid enemies who want to cause us harm as well as allows us to focus our resources domestically.
Since the beginning of the 21st century, we have been reminded of the limits and great expense of counter-violence as a policy of the US. In my opinion, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, were not worth it- so many lives destroyed, so much taxpayer money spent, and, not enough to show for it. Iraq is now a democracy but a fragile, unsafe, and corrupt one that is more under the influence of Iran than before. Afghanistan is now back in the hands of the Taliban. These recent examples demonstrate how hard it is to use massive counter-violence internationally as a way to achieve security and peace. The money we spent on counter-violence in those countries would have much better spent domestically and on peaceful international investments. Furthermore, in the Iraq war, we opened with the massive counter-violence tactic of “shock and awe” bombing- killing the relatives of and destroying the infrastructure of the people we were trying to liberate- was it any surprise that some Iraqis turned against us? Bombing population centers is a counter-violent tactic which causes significant damage but its short and long-term effectiveness is often debated (source).
Although we are skeptical of our ability to impose democracy through military force abroad, we still believe that we should help existing democracies succeed and we certainly should not hurt existing democracies. We believe that supporting anti-democratic governments is not only morally repugnant, but usually hurts our long-term security. Again, this statement may seem obvious but our government sometimes has and does support anti-democratic governments abroad and has helped overthrow democratic regimes. We helped to overthrow the democratic government in Iran in 1953 with terrible long-term consequences for Iran, the US, and the world (source). We supported the brutal dictator Fulgencio Batista in Cuba after he overthrew a democratically elected government which backfired when Fidel Castro overthrew Batista and installed a regime that is unfriendly to the US to this day. Additionally we supported the overthrow of the democratically elected President Allende in Chile and in his place helped install and then support the brutal dictator Augusto Pinochet. And these are not the only examples.
The US helped overthrow Allende in Chile while Henry Kissinger was Secretary of State. Kissinger would say “sometimes the ends justify certain means” to secure long-term peace and stability and advance American interests (source). Many of those “means” pushed by Kissinger were brutal and against American Preamblist values. Kissinger would say these actions were done to achieve good in the long-run even though they were brutal in the short run. Preamblism asserts that Kissinger’s view is mostly incorrect. These short-term brutal and anti-democratic actions that were supposed to achieve a long-term good, produced exactly the opposite- as Professor Jeremi Suri says, they were “undermining democracy, global stability (source).” As stated above, our intervention in Iran and Cuba backfired against us horribly as we can see from our relationship with those states today. Therefore, Preamblism asserts the US should almost never use these types of anti-democratic cruel means in foreign policy because they often do not result in positive long-term results but instead hurt us and the world in the long-term and of course, hurt or kill many innocent people in the short-term too.
Topic: Gun Control
The Second Amendment states: “A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” Many in our government have chosen to interpret this Amendment as a right to own and carry guns with almost no restrictions and perceive almost any attempt towards reasonable gun control as an assault on their fundamental rights and will never compromise. However, when looking at this right with the additional context of the Preambles, we reach a different conclusion. Based on the deaths caused by mass and individual shootings which far outweigh those in similar countries and deny the victims and affected communities of the rights/goals stated in the Preambles of “life,” “happiness,” “safety,” “common defense,” and “general welfare, that common sense gun control is not only justified but imperative to achieving the Preambles. The rights/goals in the Preambles clearly include the right of all individuals to go out in public without reasonable fear of being shot.
Additionally, the Preamble to the Constitution states “our posterity” (our children and future generations) as a major interest group…when it comes to guns therefore we must pay particular attention to school shootings…in other words we violate the Preamble when we allow school shootings due to lack of common sense gun control.
Anti-gun control activists claim that gun possession with virtually no limitation is an individual right as stated in the Bill of Rights…but don’t I as an individual have the right to go out in public and not be shot, don’t I as an individual, have the right to send my kids to school or the movies or a concert without reasonable fear of a school shooting like we saw in Columbine, Aurora, Parkland, Sandy Hook, Las Vegas and more. Additionally as stated in the Preambles, individual rights are not the only goal, the wellness of the community is important too, and communities are clearly not benefiting when there is a mass shooting- don’t communities have the right to protect their kids through reasonable gun control?
Anti-gun control activists claim that they we must follow the words as written by our Founding Father’s- using that same logic, then we must also follow those words written in the Preambles- so if you think we must follow the words of the Founders, then you can’t just follow those in the Bill of Rights, you must also follow those in the Preambles too. (Additionally, not linked directly to the Preambles, but the second Amendment does start with “A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,” which were words also written by the Founding Fathers that we can’t simply ignore.)
Individual gun rights, when taken to the extreme are a violation of the 9th Amendment in the Bill of Rights (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”) The Bill of Rights specifically calls out the right to bear arms, but as stated in the 9th Amendment we should not construe this specific mention “to deny or disparage” other rights. Unfortunately this is exactly what is happening with the Second Amendment- gun rights are being construed to deny or disparage the more general rights to life, safety and common welfare.
The Preambles better enable us to view gun rights in a broader context with common sense. Contrary to some extreme gun rights activists perspective, even many conservatives recognize this. Even Justice Scalia’s opinion on guns recognizes this when it states that the “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home” AND also states “Like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment of state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government building, or laws imposing conditions on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.” We interpret this to mean that common sense gun control laws are constitutional in order to protect rights stated in the Preambles such as “life,” “pursuit of happiness,” “justice,” “tranquility,” and “general welfare” which are denied when an innocent American is shot by a firearm used unlawfully.
The National Deficit & Debt, Government Spending, and Taxes:
Preamblism holds that “We the People” should promote government fiscal responsibility, balance the budget, and eliminate government debt to ensure the achievement of the Preamblist values especially “future security” and “our Posterity.” Too often, tackling the debt is seen in opposition to a strong economy because it involves cutting spending and raising taxes, which will slow the economy in the short-term. But this is a short-term view because the debt will catch up to us eventually and already is. Balancing our budget is essential to our economy’s long term success. Therefore, Preamblism holds that we must factor fiscal responsibility into all our decisions and policies including reducing the deficit with a long-term goal of little to no national debt. When times are good, we must save to offset our debt and to have more of a “rainy day fund” for when times are bad due to pandemic, war, or recession. But we should not address this need by forcing a crisis by threatening to not raise the debt ceiling because that will only harm us more by making our current debt more expensive to service and potentially creating economic disaster. As stated in George Washington’s farewell address:
“As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much graters disbursements to repel it, avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertion in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should cooperate.”
Of course, balancing the national budget is easier said than done and the question is how? Preamblism holds that we must have an “all of the above approach.” We must reduce spending and increase efficiency in all areas of government- including social programs, the military, and general administration- and raise taxes especially on the wealthy.
Government efficiency: All government programs should be constantly assessing themselves and be assessed from the outside for efficiency. This does not mean doing away with the program- it means making it more cost effective and efficient. All government departments should be constantly executing plans to reduce their costs but still achieve the same societal positive effect. Yes there are limits to this, but the key is to constantly keep striving or we will miss opportunities. We should encourage government programs and departments to be more cost effective. For example, we should eliminate the incentive for a government department to spend all of its budget in each fiscal year.
Military spending: One department of the government is the Defense Department (containing the military) and it should not be immune from our principle above stated that all departments must strive for cost efficiency. Of course, much of the military spending brings huge benefits and we must spend more in certain areas especially to ensure the welfare of our troops and veterans and their families. But in other areas, we need to recognize that we spend far more on military spending than any other industrial country which is a sign that we must assess whether all this spend is benefiting us as much as it could be if it were back in the pockets of lower and middle class Americans or funding education or other programs. Exploring this is further supported by the recent difficulties we have faced in Afghanistan and Iraq in which we have spent huge amounts of money but with questionable benefit. We must also ensure that our military spending is geared more purely towards defending our nation rather than enriching defense contractors. As President and General Eisenhower stated, “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.”
Social programs- social programs are essential to achieving many of the Preamblist Values but they also should aim to be financially sustainable. In other words, the nation must be able to afford the social programs in the long run and therefore, we should target programs to those who actually need them and cannot afford the services. For example, the rich don’t need social security payments so we support stopping those. Social programs should also be geared towards helping individuals get to self-sustainability and therefore the spend on most working-age adults should be as temporary and limited as possible. Social programs should target helping working-age adults find and sustain a job (of course there are some severe cases in which we must permanently support an adult, but these should be exceptions. Additionally, we strongly support social programs for kids until they are adults). Additionally we must reduce Social Security retirement spending because, if we don’t, we will sacrifice the Preamblist Values of “future security” and “our Posterity.” This includes revising the retirement age higher for many individuals and types of jobs- unless someone is truly unable to work productively due to their age, the Social Security retirement age should be higher.
As for taxes, we again turn to George Washington’s farewell address: “it is essential that you should practically bear in mind that towards the payments of debts, there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant.” In other words, taxes suck, but they are necessary to pay the bills. Someone will have to pay higher taxes so it’s really just a matter of who. Preamblism holds that we should levy taxes in proportion to the ability to pay them; in other words, the highest burden should fall on those most able to pay, the few wealthiest, and not on those least able to pay, the many in the lower and middle classes. This principle is most in line with the Preamblist Values because high taxes would most harm the many in the lower and middle classes rather than the few wealthiest in the “pursuit of happiness,” and therefore would most hurt equality, and “general welfare.” In other words, the few wealthiest can still live a very happy life if they pay much more taxes, whereas, the rest of us would have a much less happy life if we had to pay much more in taxes. This is not unfair to the wealthy because the value of a dollar is much higher for a poorer person than a richer one because the poorer will use it to buy essentials such as food. Relatedly, there is an economic argument for this too: ‘Then add an Econ 101 notion that is pretty much universally accepted, because it’s strongly supported by theory, empirics, and just plain sensible intuition: decreasing marginal propensity to spend. A poorer person is more likely to spend an extra dollar (in wealth or income) than a richer person. Because: the “utility” (or just benefit) purchased by that extra dollar is so much higher for the poorer person. The fourth ice cream cone, iPhone, or Lamborghini just isn’t as enjoyable as the first. So greater concentration into a few hands means less spending — in economic terms, lower “velocity,” or turnover, of wealth. And less spending means less production. Because Q: why do people and firms produce things? A: Because lots of people spend money to buy them. How many iPhones would Apple have sold if all our wealth were concentrated in a few hands? (Over the last year, by the way, Apple has sold circa 10 million devices. To get a feel for that: they’ve been producing about twenty devices per minute, one every three seconds, during every minute of every day — all pretty much on demand. Absent the redistribution and government programs that rich countries provide, market capitalism strangles itself, through concentration, with insufficient demand to drive — to “incentivize” — its own masterful engine of production.’ (source). Therefore we do not believe the poor or lower middle class should bear more taxes, but we do believe in more, potentially much more taxes, on the richer portion of the country including taxing their earnings, their wealth, their retirement funds, their capital gains, and their real estate at higher rates. We must also rigorously close tax loopholes that some of the wealthy exploit to pay less taxes.
We also believe that corporations should pay their fair share. The one concern with higher taxes on corporations is the effect on jobs- in theory, the more we tax corporations, the less they hire. So, perhaps, a corporation can either pay their fair share in taxes or jobs. But they should pay their fair share.
Topic: Good regulations are important
The Opioid Crisis:
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has an important role. As stated on its website, part of their mission is to be “responsible for protecting the public health by ensuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs…” (FDA- What we do). We can see the importance of their role by looking at one of their failures. When Purdue Pharma (Purdue) was bringing OxyCotin to market, one of the FDA regulators, Curtis Wright IV, worked directly with Purdue to craft the language of the drug’s package insert label to include: “Delayed absorption, as provided by OxyCotin tablets, is believed to reduce the abuse liability of a drug.” This is a text book case of poor government oversight and regulation. There were limited scientific studies or evidence that supported that OxyCotin was less addictive than other opioids (How FDA Failures Contributed to the Opioid Crisis). As Wright testified the word “believed” in the statement meant “Might be a consensus belief, it might be an expert opinion. It’s more than a conjecture, but if there is evidence, you usually make some statement that there is evidence.” (Curtis_Wright_IV). Why is a regulator allowing a “belief” to be written on a label? I don’t want a regulator authorizing statements based on a “belief” especially as defined by Wright. Instead, I want regulators authorizing statements based on strong scientific evidence. This label language helped create the opioid epidemic. Doctors thought there was more to the statement than just a “belief” precisely because it was on a label approved by the FDA. Furthermore, Wright was not just allowing a “belief” to be written on the label, he was actually helping Purdue write it during “back and forth iterations.” Instead, Wright should have been telling Purdue something like, “no, we cannot write anything on the label about OxyCotin’s possible less additive affects, because there is not enough scientific evidence to support it, period, end of discussion.” This language was hugely consequential as it helped Purdue aggressively market OxyCotin to doctors as less addictive than other opioids which led doctors to prescribe it much more which resulted in many more people becoming addicted to opioids, some of them addicted to this day, some of them not around today because of an overdose. The takeaway: there are plenty of other companies that will act like Purdue and we need strong government regulators to be the publics guardian. Another source for this : Podcast: American Scandal, Season 51: Opioids in America; Episode 1: Cure for Pain. To find out more about FDA failures in terms of Opioid read: How FDA Failures Contributed to the Opioid Crisis.
Topic: Financial Inequality, Poverty and Health Care
The preambles state the values of “All men are created equal” and “general welfare.” In line with these values, Preamblists believe everyone, including and especially children, should have a good opportunity to succeed in our economic system, including access to a quality education, affordable health care, a safe home and enough healthy food.
Additionally, we also believe that if you work, you should get paid a living wage and that one 40 hour-a-week job per adult should be enough to support you and your family with a decent, basic life: enough food, health care, and a safe home. No one should have to work beyond a full-time job to achieve these basic necessities. We do believe that all able adults should work full time or contribute a vital service such as raising kids (which, being in the process of raising kids, I consider work). Work has benefits for the individual. For example, through work individuals build skills and reputation that they can use to get other jobs as necessary. This also has benefits for the nation- the more productive the inhabitants, the stronger the country. There are people who don’t work who could- this is a shame for the person and the nation and therefore there should be incentives for them to work such as a better level of social support for those who can and do work v. those who can and don’t work. But we can’t completely take away all the social support for anyone even if they can and don’t work because we are not or at least don’t want to be a society that just lets people die.
Another aspect of society that Preamblists greatly value involves providing quality health care to all. To achieve the Preamblist values including “Life,” “Happiness” “Safety” and “general Welfare” we must promote and support the health of all Americans. As we saw in COVID-19, this is also crucial to our common defense and general welfare. We support health-care-for-all.
Topic: Economy (under major construction)
For the most part, we endorse a capitalist, free-market system in which the government does not direct the economy. This system is most in line with the preambles’ goal of “liberty” and has produced the most “life, happiness and general welfare” for the most people overall. But these types of systems have historically had major downsides:
FIrst, these systems have often left too many people behind which diminishes their “life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and safety.” We agree with Adam Smith, the father of free market capitalism, when he wrote, “No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of members are poor and miserable.”
Additionally, these systems have frequently been manipulated so that the political structures favor the wealthy at the expense of the middle class and poor and therefore, the market can no longer be called free.
Finally, these systems too frequently have big busts in which the “general welfare” is challenged.
We believe government must play an active role in preventing these historic downsides in two ways:
government should ensure all have a realistic opportunity to work to achieve their preamble rights and basic needs. Providing this opportunity creates a stronger economy because it enables the vast majority of people to add value to the economy through quality work and purchasing power. Then a successful economy produces significant funds for programs that ensure fair opportunity through education and other government and non-government programs. Therefore, opportunity and a strong economy support each other in a powerful win-win virtuous cycle.
We believe government should prevent wealthy individuals and groups from having undue influence in politics which gives them an unfair economic advantage over the less wealthy.
We are anti-monopolies and generally pro anti-trust.
Preamblists Strive for an economy that promotes the values of the Preambles for all people, thereby truly achieving a “land of opportunity.” By looking at history, we believe the best way to do this is primarily through “democratic capitalism” which combines:
a competitive private sector business system with
a government and non-profit sector that both:
actively strives for all people to have a realistic opportunity to work to achieve their Preamblist Values so that America is truly the “land of opportunity” (strong public education is an example of a program that ensures opportunity for all).
Encourages businesses, often through smart regulations, to act consistently with our Preamblist Values (such as preserving a healthy environment that promotes “life” and “safety” and avoiding near sighted actions that lead to recessions).
This combination creates a mutually reinforcing win-win virtuous cycle in which:
greater opportunity enables the vast majority of people to add value to the economy through quality work and purchasing power.
In turn, a successful economy produces significant funds for government and non-profit programs that ensure fair opportunity through education and other government and non-government programs.
Likewise, we believe in a virtuous win-win cycle between unions, corporations, and government in which:
unions help well compensated, trained, and motivated workers provide better results for their corporations,
government programs help provide corporations with well-educated workers,
and corporations in turn provide well-paying jobs and tax revenue.
Topic: The Environment
Another aspect of society that Preamblists value is the environment. Preamblists Protect and promote the environment because without it, we nor our posterity cannot have the Preamblist rights of “life” “pursuit of happiness” nor “Safety” “general welfare” without a healthy environment and to ensure rights of the Preambles. Too often this is seen in opposition to a strong economy, but, in fact, it is essential to its long term success.
MUCH MORE TO COME- WHAT BROAD TOPICS WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE DISCUSSED? CLICK ON THE CONTACT BUTTON ABOVE AND TELL US. PLEASE CONSIDER DONATING BY CLICKING ON BUTTON BELOW. IF YOU DONATE, MORE LIKELY WE CAN PRODUCE CONTENT SUCH AS ABOVE.